Canadians Against Suicide Bombing

[scribblet]

Sounds good to me, I'm all for it, that is specifically referring to suicide bombings as terrorism.

http://www.canasb.ca/Speeches/Segal.aspx

GOOD NEWS FOR CANADIANS AGAINST SUICIDE BOMBING

• CANASB is in regular contact with Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Stockwell Day and the Prime Minister’s office. The Conservative Canadian government told us they would help Liberal Senator Grafstein’s Bill S-206, considered a “Made in Canada Solution”, to specifically cover suicide bombing as terrorism. Click links to read.

• Bill S-206 was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for Hearings. See “Breaking News” in our www.canasb.ca web site as many leading Liberal and Conservative Senators support the Bill.

• CANASB’s Letter to the Senate supporting the Bill is signed by “A remarkable collection” of prominent Canadian political, religious and business leaders including Bob Rae, John Tory, Ed Broadbent, David Peterson, General MacKenzie, Gerald Schwartz, Salim Mansur and the Anglican primate. We will send it to the Senate and publicize it nationally when the Hearings start.

• Passing Bill S-206 to declare “suicide bombing as terrorism” would be a first for any parliament in the world.

• The Australian Parliament became the first in the world to pass a bipartisan motion urging suicide terrorism be declared a "crime against humanity”. Many experts consider suicide bombing as “terrorism” and as a “crime against humanity” interchangeable concepts

[cybercoma]

Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, really?

This reminds me of the group Women Against Rape, which begs the question, "are there any women for rape?"

[Army Guy]

Is there any more info on this bill ?

The reason i ask because i don't see the bill accomplishing much, other than the fact it will get your organization label as carrying out terrorist activities..big deal there are alot of organizations that have carried out or have ties to terrorists and our government still deals with them...

As a soldier i think suicide bombing is a form of warfare, as long as it is directed towards military type targets....i think we run a slippery slope here when we start declaring what actions are good and what are bad... to them me kicking in thier door at 2 am with 12 heavily armed men tearing their home apart looking for arms or whatever is a terrorist activitiy. to them me pumping serveral rounds into thier car for getting to close to me is a terrorist activitiy...

What we really need is tougher laws restricting or preventing our government from dealing with these groups, plus more funding into ensuring they are not operating in our country.

[Charles Anthony]

i think we run a slippery slope here when we start declaring what actions are good and what are bad...

God forbid we should ever do that!

to them me kicking in thier door at 2 am with 12 heavily armed men tearing their home apart looking for arms or whatever is a terrorist activitiy. to them me pumping serveral rounds into thier car for getting to close to me is a terrorist activitiy...

As a human being, what do YOU call it?

[Warwick Green]

Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, really?

This reminds me of the group Women Against Rape, which begs the question, "are there any women for rape?"

And if the bill is passed does anyone think the terrorists will care?

[Army Guy]

Charles Anthony:

As a soldier i think suicide bombing is a form of warfare, as long as it is directed towards military type targets....i think we run a slippery slope here when we start declaring what actions are good and what are bad...

God forbid we should ever do that!

perhaps you can explain that comment, do you think there is not enough restrictions, or to many ?

to them me kicking in thier door at 2 am with 12 heavily armed men tearing their home apart looking for arms or whatever is a terrorist activitiy. to them me pumping serveral rounds into thier car for getting to close to me is a terrorist activitiy...

As a human being, what do YOU call it?

I call it doing the job that our country has asked me to do, doing what you pay me to do. If your asking me as a human being do i feel remorse for carrying out those orders, At the start of my first tour yes i did some what , but that quickly wore off, after seeing a section mate shot through the skull by a 12 year old boy we had by passed in a home search ,thinking he was no threat...or searching a veh that has been hit by a suicide bomber and only finding a boot of what was your buddy ...now after my second tour, i feel nothing, someone tells me thiers a terrorist in that home we storm it fully expecting to engage it's occupants, all of it's occupants. a veh gets to close we engage it until it is disabled or is no longer a threat....We are not cruel about nor do we get pleasure from doing it, but make no mistakes we will do what ever it takes to do our jobs...

[kimmy]

As a soldier i think suicide bombing is a form of warfare, as long as it is directed towards military type targets....i think we run a slippery slope here when we start declaring what actions are good and what are bad...

Or to build on that... isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

It seems somewhat fake for us to declare "our" kind of fighting to be "ok" while declaring "their" kind of fighting to be a "crime against humanity".

God forbid we should ever do that!

perhaps you can explain that comment, do you think there is not enough restrictions, or to many ?

I think he's pointing out that we declare actions good or bad all the time.

-k

[Black Dog]

I think this is where I add that, as a Canadian, I too am Against Suicide Bombing. (These days you really have to get specific or people get all kinds of crazy ideas.) Actually, I am against bombing in most forms, though I have been known to drop the odd f-bomb in conversation.

[Figleaf]

I fail to see any purpose in this proposed measure. A suicide bombing (conducted against civilian targets) is already a crime. (It's legitimacy if used against military targets depends on the legitimacies of the overall conflict.)

[Charles Anthony]

though I have been known to drop the odd f-bomb in conversation.

Would you say that is good or bad??

I think he's pointing out that we declare actions good or bad all the time.

Indeed and I think we should be judging our own personal actions a little more often lest we become cold and heartless.

Or should we only judge other people's actions?

It seems somewhat fake for us to declare "our" kind of fighting to be "ok" while declaring "their" kind of fighting to be a "crime against humanity".

I agree.

However, we do that all of the time.

Or to build on that... isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

No. I think hand-delivering a bomb takes a lot more courage than dropping it from a plane.

perhaps you can explain that comment, do you think there is not enough restrictions, or to many ?

I honestly have no idea what you are doing over there.

I call it doing the job that our country has asked me to do, doing what you pay me to do.

Surprise, surprise: not every Canadian supports the "mission" in Afghanistan.

You are working for a select number of Canadians.

We are not cruel about nor do we get pleasure from doing it, but make no mistakes we will do what ever it takes to do our jobs...

Again, I have no idea what you are doing over there. All I can do is go by what you say. So far, I doubt that you are objective. Which is fine. You are the one doing the "work" over there.

[White Doors]

Is there any more info on this bill ?

The reason i ask because i don't see the bill accomplishing much, other than the fact it will get your organization label as carrying out terrorist activities..big deal there are alot of organizations that have carried out or have ties to terrorists and our government still deals with them...

As a soldier i think suicide bombing is a form of warfare, as long as it is directed towards military type targets....i think we run a slippery slope here when we start declaring what actions are good and what are bad... to them me kicking in thier door at 2 am with 12 heavily armed men tearing their home apart looking for arms or whatever is a terrorist activitiy. to them me pumping serveral rounds into thier car for getting to close to me is a terrorist activitiy...

What we really need is tougher laws restricting or preventing our government from dealing with these groups, plus more funding into ensuring they are not operating in our country.

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal. Also, your actions are very legal.

[Wilber]

Surprise, surprise: not every Canadian supports the "mission" in Afghanistan.

You are working for a select number of Canadians.

If you want to use that criteria you can say the same for any of our governments. If they can only act in a manner that every Canadian supports there is no reason to have a government or military at all, because that will never happen.

[kimmy]

Or to build on that... isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

No. I think hand-delivering a bomb takes a lot more courage than dropping it from a plane.

You're probably right, but I don't think that's the sort of distinction that would make one act a "crime against humanity" while the other is considered business as usual.

I call it doing the job that our country has asked me to do, doing what you pay me to do.

Stop saying that. You know that not every Canadian supports the "mission" in Afghanistan.

You are working for a select number of Canadians.

He's an official representative of this country, doing duties that have been assigned to him by consecutive parliaments.

-k

[Wilber]

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal. Also, your actions are very legal.

What constitutes a suicide attack? History is full of instances where attacks have been made by military units of all nations when although suicide was not their intention, they knew survival was unlikely if not impossible. The Spartans at Thermopylae knew it was a one way trip before they left home. Were they criminals?

[White Doors]

As a soldier i think suicide bombing is a form of warfare, as long as it is directed towards military type targets....i think we run a slippery slope here when we start declaring what actions are good and what are bad...

Or to build on that... isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

No it's not hard to draw a line. The plane or what have you is legally marked as per the guidleline of warefare. It belongs to a recognized armed forces of a sovereign nation etc.

It seems somewhat fake for us to declare "our" kind of fighting to be "ok" while declaring "their" kind of fighting to be a "crime against humanity".

It does? It may be hard for you, but the internationally agreed to rules of engagement are clear.

God forbid we should ever do that!

perhaps you can explain that comment, do you think there is not enough restrictions, or to many ?

I think he's pointing out that we declare actions good or bad all the time.

I think it would be just as bad if we started launching suicide attacks against the taliban.

it is illegal. give your heads a shake people.

-k

[Black Dog]

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal.

Cite?

There's nothing inherently less moral about suicide bombing per se, versus any other act of violence. It's a tactic and launching an organization to oppose suicide bombing makes about as much sense as launching a war on an emotional state of being like terror.

[White Doors]

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal. Also, your actions are very legal.

What constitutes a suicide attack? History is full of instances where attacks have been made by military units of all nations when although suicide was not their intention, they knew survival was unlikely if not impossible. The Spartans at Thermopylae knew it was a one way trip before they left home. Were they criminals?

Well besides that predates the geneva conventions but just a few years... The spartans were the army of Sparta. They were in uniform etc. They were 'legal' combatants if we were to apply geneva conventions upon them. Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly. You know, I have heard of moral equivelancy, but this clap trap is goin a little far here people. Even the UN would think you guys are leftie radicals for god's sake.

[scribblet]

I believe the reason for this is because suicide bombings are not specifically mentioned in the terrorist act.

I also feel that many of the liberal or more radical left wingers support it, or at least refuse to condemn it.

http://www.canasb.ca/Breaking%20News.aspx

[Wilber]

Well besides that predates the geneva conventions but just a few years... The spartans were the army of Sparta. They were in uniform etc. They were 'legal' combatants if we were to apply geneva conventions upon them. Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly. You know, I have heard of moral equivelancy, but this clap trap is goin a little far here people. Even the UN would think you guys are leftie radicals for god's sake.

I'm not defending suicide bombing but I do see Army Guy's point. Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct.

No doubt the Taliban also see themselves as defending their country and way of life from the invader. I doubt they see suicide bombing as cowardly or illegal, therefore they will care less about a Bill presented by a political appointee in a country on the other side of the world.

Whether their actions are legal or not will mean nothing to someone about to blow themselves up, particularly someone from a different country, religion and culture who could care less what the Parliament of Canada thinks. Just another Bill that sounds nice but means nothing and will accomplish nothing.

[White Doors]

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal.

Cite?

There's nothing inherently less moral about suicide bombing per se, versus any other act of violence. It's a tactic and launching an organization to oppose suicide bombing makes about as much sense as launching a war on an emotional state of being like terror.

It's an illegal tactic. Because you may say there is no difference does not make it so. You have to learn that your 'opinion' as legitimate or in this case as preposterous as it is, does not count for squat.

"Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)"

Link:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[White Doors]

Well besides that predates the geneva conventions but just a few years... The spartans were the army of Sparta. They were in uniform etc. They were 'legal' combatants if we were to apply geneva conventions upon them. Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly. You know, I have heard of moral equivelancy, but this clap trap is goin a little far here people. Even the UN would think you guys are leftie radicals for god's sake.

I'm not defending suicide bombing but I do see Army Guy's point. Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct.

Too late - that has already happened. But it is a moot point. What CDN soldiers are doing is perfectly legal and moral.

No doubt the Taliban also see themselves as defending their country and way of life from the invader. I doubt they see suicide bombing as cowardly or illegal, therefore they will care less about a Bill presented by a political appointee in a country on the other side of the world.

That is valid - but how they see themselves does nothing to make their actions legal in any sense.

It is irrelevant how they see themselves. They are welcome to obey the laws of war at ay time but do not. I judge them by their actions as does the law.

Whether their actions are legal or not will mean nothing to someone about to blow themselves up, particularly someone from a different country, religion and culture who could care less what the Parliament of Canada thinks. Just another Bill that sounds nice but means nothing and will accomplish nothing.

I think the law may act to pre-empt the very thing that you are afraid of: Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct.

[Black Dog]

Well besides that predates the geneva conventions but just a few years... The spartans were the army of Sparta. They were in uniform etc. They were 'legal' combatants if we were to apply geneva conventions upon them. Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly. You know, I have heard of moral equivelancy, but this clap trap is goin a little far here people. Even the UN would think you guys are leftie radicals for god's sake.

So the Geneva Convention does not, as you claim, prohbit suicide bombing per se. What it does is define who is considered a combatant in war time and govern how combatants and non-combatants should be treated. IOW, a suicide bomber who dresses up as a civilian and targets civilians is violating the Geneva Convention because of the fact that he's dressing up as a civilian and targeting civilians, not because he's using abomb belt instead of a machine gun.

It's an illegal tactic. Because you may say there is no difference does not make it so. You have to learn that your 'opinion' as legitimate or in this case as preposterous as it is, does not count for squat.

It is not an "illegal tactic" and nothing in your post or link says it is. Sorry, but you're just wrong.

[Wilber]

That is valid - but how they see themselves does nothing to make their actions legal in any sense.

It is irrelevant how they see themselves. They are welcome to obey the laws of war at ay time but do not. I judge them by their actions as does the law.

You can judge them anyway you want but it won't matter because they don't care, will be dead and therefore beyond your reach. Regardless of how you feel about suicide bombing this bill is a useless waste of time.

I think the law may act to pre-empt the very thing that you are afraid of: Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct.

Good point but I get the impression he fears more restrictions being put on how he is allowed to fight people who recognize no restrictions. I think that is always a valid fear for people who play by the rules when they are forced to fight those who don't recognize any rules.

[White Doors]

Well besides that predates the geneva conventions but just a few years... The spartans were the army of Sparta. They were in uniform etc. They were 'legal' combatants if we were to apply geneva conventions upon them. Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly. You know, I have heard of moral equivelancy, but this clap trap is goin a little far here people. Even the UN would think you guys are leftie radicals for god's sake.

So the Geneva Convention does not, as you claim, prohbit suicide bombing per se. What it does is define who is considered a combatant in war time and govern how combatants and non-combatants should be treated. IOW, a suicide bomber who dresses up as a civilian and targets civilians is violating the Geneva Convention because of the fact that he's dressing up as a civilian and targeting civilians, not because he's using abomb belt instead of a machine gun.

It's an illegal tactic. Because you may say there is no difference does not make it so. You have to learn that your 'opinion' as legitimate or in this case as preposterous as it is, does not count for squat.

It is not an "illegal tactic" and nothing in your post or link says it is. Sorry, but you're just wrong.

No I am not wrong. A suicide bomber is not dressed in a military uniform acting on behalf of a national governmnet. Therefore he/she is an illegal combatant and what they are doing is nothing more than murder regardless of who they attack be it civilian or military.

That is an illegal tactic.

Get it?

[White Doors]

That is valid - but how they see themselves does nothing to make their actions legal in any sense.

It is irrelevant how they see themselves. They are welcome to obey the laws of war at ay time but do not. I judge them by their actions as does the law.

You can judge them anyway you want but it won't matter because they don't care, will be dead and therefore beyond your reach. Regardless of how you feel about suicide bombing this bill is a useless waste of time.

I think the law may act to pre-empt the very thing that you are afraid of: Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct.

Good point but I get the impression he fears more restrictions being put on how he is allowed to fight people who recognize no restrictions. I think that is always a valid fear for people who play by the rules when they are forced to fight those who don't recognize any rules.

Such is the burden of belonging to a civilized society. I like to think our superior training, tactics & weaponry more than make up for these operational restrictions.

In truth, Army Guy should be more worried about black dogs opinions becoming mainstream in Canada. That is the only thing that can really defeat Canada in Afghanistan.